§ LORD ADDISON had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will inform the House under what regulation a father was recently prosecuted at Lowestoft for giving a small piece of pork to his daughter; and whether the Government are prepared so to modify the regulation that family or personal gifts of this character shall cease to be treated as crimes; and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to call the attention of the House to what might appear to be a relatively small matter, but when we examine its implications we shall find it is a very important matter. I therefore make no apology for bringing it to your Lordships' notice. I quote from the report in the Daily Telegraph of February 18, which states that a certain man, of whom I know nothing except what is mentioned in the paper, was prosecuted "for supplying rationed food although not a retailer." It appeared that he gave three pieces of pork weighing 2 lb., 4 lb., and 3 lb. respectively to his daughter, his daughter-in-law, and a friend, and he was fined for so doing. The magistrate apparently had very little sympathy with the prosecution for he fined him 1s. on the first count, 2s. on the second, and another 1s. on the third—working out at 6d. a lb. As it stands, therefore, under some regulation or other for which I 167 have asked in my Motion, it is an offence for a parent to give 2 lb. of pork to his daughter.
§ This is really not a joking matter. It is a very serious matter. It is probably the first time in the history of British law that it has been an offence for a parent to give something to his or her child. That is now the case, and therefore I make no apology for introducing the matter. It is certainly an intrusion of Governmental regulation into family life which is entirely unprecedented. I want to know something about that regulation and how it has come about. It is a very wholesome and right Parliamentary practice that if you are interested in a subject you should declare yourself. I declare myself. I committed this crime more than a year ago myself! I should like to have an opportunity of repeating it. Of course, while it is sub judice, naturally one withholds one's hand but, like many other people who live in the country, with the aid of a gardener and homegrown food, a pig was duly produced and cured. I saw nothing wrong in sending a piece of it to my children who are married and have small families to look after in the absence of their husbands on service. In fact, he would have been a churlish and selfish father who would not have done so.
§ Having confessed my sin, I feel confident now to proceed with a brief statement of the case. The fact is that thousands of people have been encouraged by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture to produce pigs by the produce of their gardens and saving bits and pieces, and a very good thing. The noble Lord (Lord Woolton), when Minister of Food, was exceedingly encouraging too, and we owe a great deal to him. After the event to which I referred rather more than a year ago, a colleague of mine on the war agricultural executive committee told me that I had committed an offence. I therefore wrote to the Ministry of Food and inquired about the matter, and my friend was confirmed in his premonition that I had committed an offence; but I was assured in the very nice letter I got from the Ministry of Food that there was a real case for the regulation, as I believe there is. Feeling no doubt it would be applied sensibly, one took no further account of the matter.
168§ I believe that the real purpose of the regulation is to prevent dishonest people evading the requirements of the Ministry of Food by presuming to give away to somebody else a portion of something they have acquired as a result of which the other person thereby would receive a double ration. It is to prevent various malpractices of different kinds that the regulation is required. I shall be glad to see the text of the regulation, but I have no doubt there is a real case for a regulation of some kind to prevent improper practices. I am quite sure, however, it was never intended by Parliament that such a regulation should apply to cases of this kind, to prevent a father giving a present at Christmas time to his daughter. It is to get the matter put on a right basis that I have brought the subject up, because it so happens I have been approached by a large number of people who, when they saw this case in the papers, were seriously disconcerted.
§ One has heard a great deal of contemptuous uneasiness expressed over this matter, and it is well that it should be put right. Apart from stupid proceedings of this kind—I must use the word "stupid" in regard to this case—there is, as a matter of fact, a perfectly practicable way of dealing with the matter. It is clearly wrong for anyone to evade the regulations and receive food in this way in addition to his other rations. The right thing to do, when the licence is given to kill the animal, is to cancel the coupons for bacon for a prescribed number of months—if one is frugal, for six months—and if a man were foolish enough to give away more than he ought to do, he would find before the end of the time he was short of supplies. That would be a very effective way of dealing with him and one which any sensible person would approve of.
§ Then there is another aspect of this matter. I see that this person was summoned for supplying rationed food although not a retailer. I should like a little more information on this case. This case again affects a very large number of people. Eggs are rationed, too, and if a person keeps less than twenty-five hens and does not want to send his eggs to a packing station—this is quite a good regulation, I am not criticizing it—and if that person does not want to store his eggs either, he can give them away. He is not 169 allowed to sell them—again, quite a right decision But if it is right to give away half a dozen eggs, why is it wrong to give away a piece of pork? Eggs and pork are both rationed foods. I should like a little light on that because it is extraordinarily confusing. As to the giving away of eggs, I should think a very large percentage of your Lordships' House must have committed an offence. We do it every week.
LORD ADDISONI have fourteen hens and they produce a great many more eggs than my household requires. Large numbers of people give away eggs to invalids and others regularly, and a good thing, too. But if it is a crime in the matter of pork, why is it not also a crime in the matter of eggs? We want some light on the subject. As a matter of fact I think it is quite sensible that people who have a few eggs to spare, and do not want them themselves, should give them away to an invalid if they know one, as a friendly gesture. It seems to me that is only common sense. This case as it stands clearly represents something which I am sure Parliament never intended, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to make a statement which will reassure a very large number of people who are worried about this matter. I beg to move.
LORD WOOLTONMy Lords, I will not say that I feel embarrassed in replying on this matter because I am speaking for another Department than my own, but I shall read to your Lordships, if you will be good enough to allow me, the brief that has been given to me which, I am sure, has been very carefully produced. This is what it says. In the case referred to by my noble friend proceedings were instituted under the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order S.R. & O. 1001/1943, which lays down the conditions on which rationed food may legally be supplied and obtained. I will not take up your Lordships' time with the details of this case, but I should like to say a word or two, if I may, about the Ministry of Food's enforcement organization. For that I was responsible. It is almost entirely decentralized and food control committees enjoy very wide discretion in the matter of enforcement. I took the view when I was Minister of Food (and I understand my right honourable and gallant 170 friend shares this view) that bodies of responsible and representative local people are able to deal much more satisfactorily than a centralized organization with what may be termed local food offences. The system ensures that all such cases are examined in the light of local knowledge by local people and gives to food enforcement a common human touch which it would be quite impossible to give under a centralized system.
It is a fact that a large proportion of cases considered by food control committees do not result in legal proceedings. This is in accordance with a general instruction that neither consumers nor traders should be prosecuted for technical or trivial offences. Sometimes there may be differences of opinion as to what is a technical or trivial offence: I admit that in the case under review there is at least room, now that the full facts are known, for some difference of opinion. In view of the great number of offences which are considered by food control committees, however, it would be unreasonable to expect a committee to reach, in every case, the decision which I am sure my right honourable friend himself would have reached had he had the case submitted to him. Moreover, a case very often takes on a different aspect when it is disclosed in Court and the defence made known.
In the particular case to which attention has been drawn by the noble Lord—and his Lordship only claimed to be referring to a newspaper report—it should be remembered that the defendant disposed of nearly 90 lb. of pork within two or three days, having previously been warned that it would be against the conditions of his licence to kill, if he disposed of the meat in the manner which was the substance of the charge to which he pleaded guilty. This charge was by no means confined, as is suggested by the noble Lord's question, to a gift of a small piece of pork to his daughter. He was able to account only for a small proportion of that 90 lb. It was a charge of supplying rationed food to a person or persons unknown and as he pleaded guilty there were strong prima facie grounds for assuming that a substantial quantity of meat had been given away or sold.
If the meat was sold the offence was more serious. But as the events occurred at Christmas time, noble Lords may be disposed, as I should most certainly have 171 been, to take a more charitable view of it. It may be, too, that the regulation in question is capable of improvement. My right honourable and gallant friend is looking into that question at the present time. Your Lordships may rest assured that if means can be found whereby pig-keepers may be given some latitude to be rather more generous to their friends and relations than the present arrangement permits and which puts them into the position of breaking the law in order to do it, then that will be done. At the same time your Lordships will recognize that every care must be taken to ensure that those who receive a share of scarce feeding-stuffs in order to produce pork and bacon, shall not be allowed to abuse that advantage, to make profit for themselves by illegal sales or barter. It was, of course, in order to meet that last point that the regulation was proposed. I am bound to say that I have much sympathy with the magistrates in the decision at which they arrived.
LORD ADDISONMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and, in particular, for the promise given towards the end of his statement that his right honourable friend will review the regulation and make such adjustments as he can, in the terms used by the noble Lord. But I would like to emphasize two points. Whatever may have been the malpractices, if they were malpractices, of this particular person, the point I made was, and the point in law I think is, not that he was fined for certain specific offences, but that his acts should have constituted offences at all. It was that that made me bring up the subject. I therefore hope that in due course I shall receive a promise from the noble Lord that we shall have the opportunity of having before us 172 the result of the revision made by the Minister of Food, and that we shall then be satisfied. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord for the assurance he has given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.